Post

More from @highbrow_nobrow

The Intellectualist

Mar 2

The Offensive Absurdity of Suggesting That Ukraine Should Just Forgive Russia and ‘Move On’

🧵1/7: Some questions aren’t just offensive.

They expose something deeper—something rotten at the core of the person asking them.

What if, just three years after 9/11, the President of France—a country that is an ally of the United States—stood in front of the world and said to President George W. Bush:

“Do you think you can forgive al-Qaeda?”

“Why don’t you forgive Osama bin Laden?”

“This whole thing could end if you would just find a way to make peace with him.”

Imagine the outrage. Imagine the reaction of the American people.

The sheer indignation at the idea that the burden of peace should fall on the victims, rather than the terrorists who had just murdered 3,000 innocent people.
theintellectualist.com/trump-ukraine-…

2/7: Now, imagine the United States itself—a country that until very recently under Trump was considered an ally of Ukraine—saying the exact same thing.

Because that is precisely what Donald Trump is doing to Ukraine.

He isn’t asking Russia, the invader, the aggressor, the one committing war crimes, to stop.

He isn’t telling Putin to withdraw his forces, to stop bombing cities, to stop executing civilians, to stop abducting children.

Instead, he’s telling Ukraine—the invaded, the victim—to lay down its arms and “move on.”

It’s an obscene question.

A betrayal.

And it completely flips reality on its head.

But let’s go even further.

What if, just three years after 9/11, someone walked up to President George W. Bush and asked:

“Do you think you can forgive al-Qaeda?”

“Why don’t you forgive Osama bin Laden?”

“Why can’t you just get along with him?”

The absurdity of the question would be immediate.

The shock on Bush’s face would have said it all.

It would have been a scandal.

An outrage.

Just the suggestion of forgiveness for the masterminds of 9/11 would have been met with fury, disbelief, and moral condemnation.

Now, imagine 9/11 wasn’t a single event.

Imagine if, instead of one horrific terrorist attack, the attacks never stopped.

Imagine if, every single day, across the entire country, bombings, executions, and mass kidnappings were taking place.

Imagine if, instead of 3,000 deaths, the body count reached hundreds of thousands.

Imagine if entire cities were reduced to rubble.

Imagine if millions of Americans were forced to flee their homes—not just for weeks, but forever.

And then, three years in, someone asked the president:

“Why don’t you just forgive them?”

That is exactly what Donald Trump is asking Ukraine to do.

When Trump says, “Why can’t Zelensky just forgive Putin?” he’s not making a call for peace.

He’s demanding submission.

It’s a grotesque question.

It flips victim and aggressor.

It erases the scale of Ukraine’s suffering.

And it absolves the perpetrator of the crime while blaming the victim for resisting it.

Let’s put the scale of this suffering into perspective.

Ukraine’s pre-war population was about 40 million—roughly one-eighth the size of the United States.

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion, over 43,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed.

That’s the equivalent of 344,000 American troops dead.

More than 12,340 Ukrainian civilians have been murdered.

Proportionally, that’s like losing 98,720 American civilians to enemy attacks.

And the suffering doesn’t end there.

Over 14 million Ukrainians—one-third of the entire population—have been displaced from their homes.

In U.S. terms, that’s as if over 100 million Americans were suddenly made refugees.

And nearly 20,000 Ukrainian children—not soldiers, not politicians, but children—have been abducted by Russia.

Taken from their families.

Erased from their homeland.

This is what Trump is asking Ukraine to forgive.

But let’s go deeper.

If this question is so obviously ridiculous when asked about 9/11, why is it being asked about Ukraine?

It’s not being asked in good faith.

It’s a deliberate inversion of reality, designed to justify Russian war crimes while shifting the blame onto Ukraine for refusing to be conquered.

Because if the invader can be the victim, and the victim can be the problem, then truth itself no longer matters.

MAGA propagandists push the idea that Ukraine somehow provoked the war—because Ukraine dared to seek NATO membership, because Ukraine wanted to move toward the West.

But let’s be absolutely clear:

Ukraine didn’t invade Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine.

If Russia withdrew tomorrow, the war would end.

If Ukraine stopped fighting tomorrow, Ukraine would cease to exist.

Asking Ukraine to “forgive” Russia while Russian forces are still bombing their cities, murdering civilians, and occupying their land isn’t just offensive.

It’s obscene.
theintellectualist.com/trump-ukraine-…

3/7: It’s like telling a kidnapped woman to forgive her captor while she’s still locked in the basement.

It’s like telling a man being beaten in the street to stop making a fuss and just let his attacker finish the job.

It’s a bad-faith distortion of reality, designed to make it easier to blame Ukraine for its own destruction while letting Russia off the hook.

The burden of peace is on Russia, the aggressor—not Ukraine, the victim.

So when Trump asks, “Why can’t Zelensky just forgive Putin?”

He isn’t asking for peace.

He’s asking Ukraine to surrender.

To die silently.

To stop fighting back.

And that is why this question isn’t just absurd.

It’s an insult.
theintellectualist.com/trump-ukraine-…

Read 8 tweets

The Intellectualist

@highbrow_nobrow

Mar 1

February 28, 2025: The Day America Publicly Embraced Tyranny

🧵1/10: Friday, February 28, 2025, will be remembered as a day of infamy—a moment as dark in America’s history as December 7th, January 6th, and September 11th. This is the day the United States did not just abandon its leadership in the democratic world—it actively joined the forces working to dismantle it.

For decades, America was the backbone of the international order.

The world relied on Washington for security, stability, and the defense of democratic values. Allies coordinated with the U.S. before making major decisions. Dictators feared its economic leverage. Enemies calculated their moves carefully.

That world is gone.

Today, NATO allies plan around Washington, not with it. Dictators act without concern for American retaliation. And for the first time in modern history, the United States is no longer a democracy defending freedom—it is a power aligned against it.

This is the moment when the U.S. officially passed the baton of global leadership, not to another democracy, but to the forces of authoritarianism.

This is the moment it changed teams.
theintellectualist.com/february-28-20…

2/10: The Role Reversal: Europe Takes the Mantle America Created

In the 18th century, America was the answer to European despotism.

The U.S. Constitution was a radical rejection of monarchy, tyranny, and the suppression of liberty. America’s founding was an act of defiance against the old world, a revolution meant to establish democracy as a permanent force in human history.

Now, history has reversed itself.

Today, Europe has become the standard-bearer of democracy, while the United States is slipping into the very despotism it once rejected. By nearly every measure—press freedom, fair elections, democratic participation, protections against corruption—European democracies now surpass the United States.

And now, Europe has formally acknowledged it must take the mantle America has abandoned.

Kaja Kallas’ statement—“The free world needs a new leader.”—wasn’t just a warning. It was a declaration of succession.

America created the postwar order. Now, Europe will inherit it.

The United States did not simply lose influence today—it lost the very role it created for itself at its founding.
theintellectualist.com/february-28-20…

3/10: February 28th: The Crystallization of a Previously Taboo Consensus

February 28, 2025, is not just a diplomatic failure or a foreign policy shift—it is the moment when the world stopped pretending.

For years, U.S. allies privately acknowledged what had been taboo to say outright: that the United States, under Trump, was falling into autocracy and was no longer a defender of democracy, but an enemy of it.

This was an open secret, discussed behind closed doors in diplomatic circles, spoken about off-record by journalists, and alluded to in veiled statements by world leaders. The reality had been clear for some time, but no major ally had dared to declare it openly.

That changed today.

For decades, the assumption was that if democracy were ever to fail, it would fail in Europe first. That assumption is now dead.

Today, Europe is the center of the democratic world. The United States is not.

theintellectualist.com/february-28-20…

Read 10 tweets

The Intellectualist

@highbrow_nobrow

Feb 25

The New Axis of Autocracy: How Trump, Putin, and Xi Are Quietly Dividing the World

🧵1/9: For the first time since its founding, NATO’s survival is in open doubt. European leaders are preparing for a world where the U.S. is no longer a guarantor of security. Taiwan, once protected by America’s military shield, now faces the same fate. Moscow and Beijing are watching, and they are moving.

This is not speculation. It is not a slow, evolutionary transition. It is an abrupt realignment of global power, taking shape in real-time. The question is no longer whether Trump, Putin, and Xi are working together. It is whether their aligned interests—whether by design or by opportunism—are accelerating the collapse of the U.S.-led global order faster than anyone expected.

Trump, Putin, and Xi are actively dismantling the post-WWII global order to carve the world into three authoritarian-controlled spheres of influence, with no regard for democratic values, global stability, or human rights.

A classified European defense briefing warns that without U.S. backing, NATO “will not survive the decade as a functional deterrent force.”

Trump’s refusal to commit to NATO’s Article V has left European leaders scrambling to reassess their security dependencies. Direct U.S. negotiations with Putin—without NATO allies present—suggest a sidelining of the alliance that has defined Western security since World War II.

At the same time, Trump has publicly questioned military aid to Ukraine, signaling a willingness to push Ukraine into negotiations on Russia’s terms, further legitimizing Russia’s territorial gains. These developments, combined with Trump’s trade war with European allies, have positioned Russia to act more aggressively while the U.S. turns its attention elsewhere.

Within weeks of Trump’s return, Russia expanded its military operations in Ukraine with renewed confidence, testing NATO’s limits in ways that seemed impossible just months ago.

European allies, once reliant on unwavering U.S. support, now find themselves scrambling for alternative defense strategies.

French President Emmanuel Macron has openly suggested that Europe must prepare for a “post-NATO” security structure, while Germany has quietly increased its defense spending in anticipation of reduced U.S. military support. If Trump continues to disengage, NATO may cease to function as a meaningful military alliance altogether.

2/9: This shift resembles past geopolitical turning points.

Just as Britain’s failure in the 1956 Suez Crisis marked the end of its global empire, NATO’s fragmentation under Trump may mark the end of U.S. hegemony. But even that parallel may understate the scale of the transition. If NATO unravels, it will not be the decline of a single empire—it will be the unraveling of an entire geopolitical order.

With NATO in crisis, China has intensified its military posturing over Taiwan. A leaked discussion from China’s Central Military Commission suggests Beijing has already calculated a “Trump window”—a timeframe in which U.S. intervention in Taiwan would be least likely.

Since Trump’s inauguration, Beijing has dramatically escalated military drills, encirclement exercises, and economic pressure on Taipei. A forced reunification is no longer an abstract possibility—it is an active, short-term strategy.

Instead of reinforcing Taiwan’s defense, the U.S. has focused on economic leverage, particularly through threats of tariffs on Taiwan’s semiconductor industry.

Trump has threatened to impose tariffs ranging from 25% to 100% on Taiwan-made semiconductors, a move that would drastically reshape global supply chains.

The intent is clear: to force Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) and other chip producers to relocate production to the U.S. This mirrors past rhetoric against China—framing Taiwan not just as a strategic ally, but as an economic competitor.

This is not just an economic dispute—it is an existential crisis for Taiwan. Its semiconductor industry is not just its economy; it is its security guarantee. The U.S. has long relied on Taiwan’s technological dominance as a deterrent against a Chinese invasion.

If that advantage is eroded, Taiwan’s vulnerability grows exponentially. Taipei now faces a two-front challenge: a China emboldened by U.S. hesitation and an America treating it as an economic adversary rather than a military ally.

Beijing sees an opportunity, and Taipei knows it is running out of options.

Meanwhile, China’s global influence continues to expand. The Belt and Road Initiative has strengthened Beijing’s economic foothold across Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East, ensuring long-term strategic partnerships beyond just military alliances.

Additionally, China is deepening security ties through the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation—a bloc designed to counterbalance Western influence.

3/9: The economic pressure campaign against Taiwan is not happening in isolation. This same approach—using corporate leverage rather than direct military action—has surfaced in another unexpected arena: TikTok.

Among the carefully arranged seating at Trump’s inauguration was TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew, placed next to Trump’s then-nominee for Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. In Washington, seating at high-profile events is never random—it reflects relationships, influence, and future intentions.

Trump has already shifted from wanting to ban TikTok to proposing that the U.S. take a financial stake in it—a reversal that aligns with the interests of powerful political donors, including Jeff Yass, a major investor in TikTok’s parent company ByteDance.

An internal GOP memo reveals that Trump’s TikTok reversal was framed not as a national security issue, but as an election strategy to boost young voter outreach. This move raises serious national security concerns. Is TikTok being leveraged as a backchannel for U.S.-China relations under Trump?

Trump’s proposed U.S. sovereign wealth fund could lay the groundwork for the U.S. to acquire TikTok outright, keeping the platform in American hands while maintaining strong economic ties with China. ByteDance is currently valued at $300 billion, with TikTok alone worth between $50 and $100 billion.

A government-backed acquisition of this scale would fundamentally reshape the global tech landscape and redefine how the U.S. exerts power—not through military alliances, but through corporate dominance.

The world order is no longer shifting—it has already shifted. The United States, Russia, and China have entered a new geopolitical reality: a tripolar world, where no single superpower dictates global stability.

Read 9 tweets

The Intellectualist

@highbrow_nobrow

Feb 8

🚨 Trump’s FBI Pick Reportedly Took Money from China & Russia—And Vows to Gut Bureau

A Nomination Clouded by Foreign Financial Interests

1/10: In 2018, Kash Patel played a key role in challenging the FBI’s investigation into Russian election interference.

Now, he is poised to lead the agency while reportedly holding millions in Chinese stock and having accepted payment from a filmmaker linked to Kremlin-backed projects. His nomination raises a serious question: could America’s top law enforcement officer face conflicts of interest tied to foreign entities?

A February 7 exposé from WIRED and The Washington Post, authored by Louise Matsakis, Greg Miller, Jon Swaine, and others, details Patel’s financial connections to both China and Russia, raising concerns among national security and ethics experts about potential conflicts of interest if he is confirmed.

Financial Ties to China: Millions in Shein’s Parent Company

2/10: According to WIRED, Patel’s financial disclosure reveals that he holds between $1 million and $5 million in restricted stock units (RSUs) from Elite Depot Ltd., a Cayman Islands-based company that fully owns Shein, the controversial Chinese e-commerce giant. These shares, granted in exchange for consulting services, began vesting on February 1, with payouts expected quarterly.

While legal experts note that Patel is not required to divest, watchdog groups such as Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) warn that his continued financial stake in Shein could create perceived conflicts of interest, particularly given the FBI’s role in investigating allegations of forced labor, data privacy concerns, and national security threats tied to Chinese firms.

Patel has stated he would recuse himself from cases involving Shein, but without an independent enforcement mechanism, experts question how such recusals would be ensured.

Ties to Russia: $25,000 Payment from Kremlin-Linked Filmmaker

3/10: A separate Washington Post investigation revealed that Patel accepted a $25,000 honorarium from Global Tree Pictures, a Los Angeles-based production company run by Russian national Igor Lopatonok.

Lopatonok has produced multiple films promoting pro-Kremlin narratives, some of which received funding from a cultural foundation created by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

His work has been criticized for pushing anti-Western messaging and efforts to weaken U.S. support for Ukraine.

The payment to Patel was linked to his participation in a six-part documentary aired on Tucker Carlson’s network, in which he was quoted calling for the closure of the FBI’s headquarters and its conversion into a “museum for the deep state.”

While Patel has not been accused of wrongdoing, national security analysts have raised concerns about the optics of accepting money from a filmmaker tied to Kremlin-funded projects while being considered to lead the FBI—a position with direct oversight of counterintelligence operations against Russian influence efforts.

Read 10 tweets

The Intellectualist

@highbrow_nobrow

Feb 7

C.D.C. Deletes Evidence of Bird Flu Spreading Between Humans and Cats After Brief Release

1/11: 🧵For a fleeting moment, a buried chapter in the evolving bird flu crisis surfaced—only to be erased just as swiftly. A report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (C.D.C.), briefly posted and then mysteriously deleted, suggested that bird flu (H5N1) may have spread between humans and household cats.

The article, originally published in The New York Times by Apoorva Mandavilli and Emily Anthes on February 6, 2025, exposes a troubling pattern of potential cross-species transmission—raising urgent questions about the government's commitment to public health transparency.

2/11: The vanished data, retrieved before its deletion, documented two U.S. households where infected cats may have passed the virus to humans and vice versa. In one case, a cat allegedly infected an adolescent before dying just four days after showing symptoms. In another, a dairy farmworker fell ill first, followed by a cat that developed symptoms and died within three days.

This critical information had been buried within a C.D.C. report ostensibly focused on Los Angeles wildfires and air quality—data on bird flu that was not present in embargoed copies provided to journalists but inexplicably appeared when the report went live.

Then, without explanation, it vanished.

3/11: The lack of clarity surrounding whether this was a bureaucratic error or a deliberate suppression of information has alarmed scientists and public health experts.

H5N1, a virus long considered an avian disease, has been spreading through dairy cattle since early 2024, infecting at least 67 Americans so far.

While the virus is not yet capable of sustained human-to-human transmission, its presence in mammals raises profound concerns about mutation risks. Dead cats on infected farms have become the first warning signs of an outbreak—sentinels of a virus creeping into new hosts.

Read 12 tweets

The Intellectualist

@highbrow_nobrow

Feb 6

Trump’s Buyout Offer: A Trap That Could Leave Federal Workers With Nothing

🧵1/7: Imagine this—you resign today, expecting months of guaranteed pay, only to find out later that the money was never actually approved. That’s the terrifying reality facing thousands of federal employees as the Trump administration pushes its so-called “Fork in the Road” buyout offer.

According to an exclusive report from NBC News (Tyler Kingkade & David Ingram, Feb. 6, 2025), top Education Department officials are warning employees that the deal can be revoked at any time—leaving them with nothing.

While the administration promises extended pay and benefits through September, the fine print reveals a shocking truth: agency heads can unilaterally cancel the deal, and workers who sign waive their right to sue, appeal, or even challenge the decision in any legal forum.

2/7: Officials inside the department, including Chief of Staff Rachel Oglesby and Chief Human Capital Officer Jacqueline Clay, raised serious concerns in a recent all-staff Zoom meeting.

One anonymous attendee compared the pitch to a “used car dealership scheme—‘Act now, one day only!’” The urgency is no accident: the administration has been aggressively pressuring workers to accept the deal, flooding them with follow-up emails stating, “This offer expires at 11:59 p.m. ET on February 6th. There will be no extensions.”

3/7: So what happens if you sign the deal, expecting to be paid until September, and then the administration pulls the plug? The answer: nothing—because the government never actually approved the funds in the first place. Over 40,000 federal employees have already accepted the buyout, but with no legal recourse, they could soon find themselves unemployed, unpaid, and completely abandoned.

This isn’t just about downsizing the bureaucracy—it’s about power. Similar tactics have been used by Viktor Orbán in Hungary and Vladimir Putin in Russia, where mass purges of career bureaucrats paved the way for political loyalists to replace them.

Read 7 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

The Intellectualist

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @highbrow_nobrow

The Intellectualist

The Intellectualist

The Intellectualist

The Intellectualist

The Intellectualist

The Intellectualist

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!